Christopher Columbus was only a man. Oftentimes, American citizens are tasked with navigating an impossible truth about their country: the very existence of the United States and all of the good that comes with it is owed in part to the atrocities of the past. It is difficult, even painful, to come to this realization, but it is necessary. Acknowledging this fact does not leave current citizens complicit in those actions as long as Americans learn from their history and work to ensure better treatment of mankind as the country’s story progresses. As it relates to Columbus, learning from history entails realizing that he was not evil incarnate, but rather a regular European colonizer acting under a severe misunderstanding of morality. Lane addresses the fallacy of this assumption when he writes, “Was Columbus an active protector of Native Americans? No. Did he wish to eliminate them? No. Did genocide directly result from his decrees and his family's commercial aims? Yes” (para. 17). To further Lane’s point: Should Columbus be excused for the damage he did on the basis of cultural and historical relativism? Of course not. But Columbus did not set out to be cruel for the sake of cruelty, just as most of the damage done by mankind is done in pursuit of goals other than simply doing damage. One quote from Fray Bartolemé de las Casas’ account of Columbus’ voyages holds a particular literary irony when considering the truth of Columbus the man. According to las Casas, the admiral says of various plant species in the New World, “It was a great affliction to me to be ignorant of their natures, for I am very certain they are all valuable” (las Casas 124). Of course, Columbus was not referring to the native peoples of America here. But, oh, how much more true that statement would have been if he
Christopher Columbus was only a man. Oftentimes, American citizens are tasked with navigating an impossible truth about their country: the very existence of the United States and all of the good that comes with it is owed in part to the atrocities of the past. It is difficult, even painful, to come to this realization, but it is necessary. Acknowledging this fact does not leave current citizens complicit in those actions as long as Americans learn from their history and work to ensure better treatment of mankind as the country’s story progresses. As it relates to Columbus, learning from history entails realizing that he was not evil incarnate, but rather a regular European colonizer acting under a severe misunderstanding of morality. Lane addresses the fallacy of this assumption when he writes, “Was Columbus an active protector of Native Americans? No. Did he wish to eliminate them? No. Did genocide directly result from his decrees and his family's commercial aims? Yes” (para. 17). To further Lane’s point: Should Columbus be excused for the damage he did on the basis of cultural and historical relativism? Of course not. But Columbus did not set out to be cruel for the sake of cruelty, just as most of the damage done by mankind is done in pursuit of goals other than simply doing damage. One quote from Fray Bartolemé de las Casas’ account of Columbus’ voyages holds a particular literary irony when considering the truth of Columbus the man. According to las Casas, the admiral says of various plant species in the New World, “It was a great affliction to me to be ignorant of their natures, for I am very certain they are all valuable” (las Casas 124). Of course, Columbus was not referring to the native peoples of America here. But, oh, how much more true that statement would have been if he